Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Crime The Courts United States Your Rights Online

FBI Caught On Camera Returning Seized Server 267

Posted by timothy from the but-we-were-just-pampering-the-evidence dept.
sunbird writes "As previously covered on Slashdot, on April 18th the FBI seized a server located in a New York colocation facility shared by May First / People Link and Riseup.net. The server, which was operated by the European Counter Network ('ECN'), the oldest independent internet service provider in Europe, was seized in relation to bomb threats sent to the University of Pittsburgh using a Mixmaster anonymous remailer hosted on the server (search warrant). The FBI's action has been criticized by the EFF. Predictably, the threats continued even after the server seizure. On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Caught On Camera Returning Seized Server More

FBI Caught On Camera Returning Seized Server

Comments Filter:

  • So, they returned a server (Score:4, Insightful)

    by G3ckoG33k ( 647276 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:34PM (#39880701)

    So, they returned a server. Isn't that good?

    Maybe I don't understand the issue here.

    • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:4, Informative)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:37PM (#39880727) Homepage Journal

      Due process and transparency?

      This is borderline "coverup" activity.

      • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Informative)

        by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:15PM (#39881101)

        How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.

        For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so? Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.

        In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.

        What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by TheCarp ( 96830 )

          Fuck legality. They took these people's server, they were informed and even should have known it was pointless to do so. Fuck, it would have taken all of how many minutes of google searching to determine what fucking mixmaster was.

          This was incompetence. Besides that.... simple fucking common courtesy says you inform people and appologize. Fuck the law, this is about decency and about serving the public, rather than just acting like a bunch of no account thugs.

          Honestly, someone should be fired for such gross

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by rtb61 ( 674572 )

            I think this whole thing is tied to the Lulzsec fiasco, where after months of committing crimes under FBI control and direction they ended up with no more people than they started with and due to messy entrapment issues now might end up losing the majority of them.

            The FBI are desperately trying to capture thousands of 'Anonymous' agents that the FBI convinced the government and media existed, this huge infamous organisation that managed to make fools out of the FBI by convincing them and others that 'An

        • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:4, Informative)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:38PM (#39881405) Homepage Journal

          The guys who installed the camera (May First / People Link) are claiming that they were not notified when the server was seized or when it was replaced.

        • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:4, Informative)

          by CanHasDIY ( 1672858 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @03:50PM (#39882703) Homepage Journal

          How is this a "coverup"? There was a properly adjudicated warrant to seize the server in the first place (whether or not it was over-broad, and whether or not someone agrees with the reasoning). Law enforcement is not obligated to make public announcements — and this story was covered widely.

          First, according to TFA:

          Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.

          In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.

          The link to the warrant is down, but if the scope is beyond the specific "place to be searched, and property to be seized" then it, again, was not a legal warrant as per the Fourth Amendment.

          For the people saying this is a Fourth Amendment violation, do people really think the FBI just routinely rolls onto private property without a legal justification for doing so?

          The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.

          Again, saying "we weren't notified of the server's seizure or return" has nothing to do with the legality of either action.

          Again, for a warrant to be legal, it has to be served to the property owner (i.e., they must be made aware that their property is to be searched, and what property is to be seized). So actually, it has everything to do with the legality of the action.

          In the first discussion, many were lamenting the possibility that the server may not be returned for months, if ever; now it's been returned (probably after having its drive(s) imaged) in a timely fashion and that's a bad thing, too? The issue of notification or announcement is irrelevant to the law.

          Considering the history of the FBI, as well as recently passed legislation that greatly (and unconstitutionally) expands the power of federal agencies, I think a little paranoia is appropriate. If the feds had honorable intentions, why wouldn't they notify the property owners? What possible justification would they have for putting the server back in place without telling anyone, if not for nefarious purposes?

          What I would be concerned about is if the FBI entered private property without permission and without a legal basis — for example, via continuing coverage by one or more warrants to enter the property. Notice that is not what is being alleged here, just what some people are assuming...

          Trespassing is illegal; any evidence gained illegally cannot be admitted in court; therefore, if the FBI did indeed trespass, then any case they may have had is now dead by their own hand.


          Of course, all my words are based on the assumption that the Constitution still matters, and is actually followed by law enforcement, which we all know damn good and well isn't the case.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by Darth ( 29071 )

            First, according to TFA:

            Neither May First/People Link or Riseup was not notified that the server was being replaced. It was never notified that the server was taken in the first place.

            In order for a warrant to be "properly adjudicated," it is required that the law enforcement agency serve the warrant to the property owner. By not notifying the property owner of the warrant, they violated the 4th Amendment.

            Well, if they were renting space on a server owned by the hosting provider, informing the hosting provider is probably sufficient as they are the property owner for the server that was taken. I don't know if that's the case, but it is possible that this particular item is not a 4th amendment violation.

            The FBI has a long history of blatant violation of civil rights, as well as literally making criminals for the sake of "busting" them, thus justifying their existence (which, in government doublespeak, translates to "budget"). That said, it would be more surprising to me to find out that the legal rights of the property owner were honored.

            I would say, even without a pretty well documented history of the FBI abusing its power, it is generally a good thing for people and organizations to watch and question the actions of any law enforcement organ

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Probably because they didn't make a public statement about it.

      Anytime a government agency does something, ideally they should state publicly wtf they're doing.

      • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:00PM (#39880971)

        I assume you are joking? They are investigating criminal activities (rather ineffectively, apparently, but still investigating), so of course they are not going to state every action they take publicly.

      • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Insightful)

        by million_monkeys ( 2480792 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:41PM (#39881447)

        Probably because they didn't make a public statement about it.

        Anytime a government agency does something, ideally they should state publicly wtf they're doing.

        Absolutely! They're spending our tax money, they ought to be telling us how their using it. If someone returns a server, I want to know about. Send out a press release, that way camera crews can be there to ensure it's done properly. And the FBI agent files sends a memo about the return, send out a press release. Then we'll all be able to sleep well knowing that there's no out standing paperwork.

        This should really apply to all government agencies. How else are we to know that our money is being well spent? Do you know how much money gets blown on "black" programs by the CIA? I think it'd be better for everyone if they told us what they were doing in all those projects. That agency is sorely in need of some more transparency and openness. With all the money they are spending, they ought to be sending out press releases all day long telling us what they're up to.

        The benefits go beyond keeping track of taxpayer money. Think of the bin Laden raid. If they had sent out a press release about it the week before, news agencies could have sent reporters over to interview bin Laden to find out how he felt about his impending demise. And then they'd have film crews there to record the action as it happened. With a week's notice, Osama's crew probably could put together some Bollywood number to perform during the raid while the SEALs were taking a timeout to update their facebook status letting us know they were blowing up that crashed helicopter.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Returned what server? That server was always there.

    • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PRMan ( 959735 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:41PM (#39880777)
      Normally, in a free society, any interactions with Law Enforcement would be above board and you would be notified. That would be known as due process. This would be called an unreasonable search and seizure by the Founding Fathers of the US.

      • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:53PM (#39880909)

        They're long dead my friend, even if their dreams and ideals live on. Its up to the people of today to persevere and embody those ideals, and if that's not happening maybe its time to ask why not.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Myopic ( 18616 ) *

          Maybe it's because, having thought really hard about it, the people of today decided that they can come up with ideals which are even more ideal than the ideals of the founding fathers. You know, progress and all that.

          Or, hey, maybe it's because the founding fathers lived during the pinacle of human thinking, and everyone born since then is a fucking stupid idiot who should just do exactly what what was wanted by fifty white land-owning males in the 1700s in New England.

          Or, hey, maybe that's all a big false

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Dahamma ( 304068 )

        Well, they had a warrant to seize the server and enough reasonable cause (the actual bomb threat email came from that server). So it was due process, and done according to the Constitutional requirement for a warrant.

        Now, if they knew anything about anonymous remailers (which shouldn't be that hard, doesn't the FBI have any technical staff??) they should have known it was a useless action that just cost everyone time and money with no results...

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Ohrion ( 814105 )
          Did they also have a warrant to enter the premises and install a now untrusted server back onto a private network without even alerting owners of said network? It sucks to have your stuff seized. It also sucks to have your stuff tampered with.

          • Do they even need a warrant for that? After all, that's neither search nor seizure.

            How do you know they didn't call up ECN and say "hey we are done with that server want it back, we'll drop it off at the colo for ya"?

      • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:4, Informative)

        by a90Tj2P7 ( 1533853 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:17PM (#39881129)

        Normally, in a free society, any interactions with Law Enforcement would be above board and you would be notified.

        Riseup and May First/Peoplelink weren't notified. They also didn't own the server or the space. Nothing says that the FBI didn't notify ECN.

      • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jklovanc ( 1603149 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:20PM (#39881161)

        It looks like you really need to understand some definitions before you use spout off.

        Due Process [wikipedia.org] is basically that law enforcement must follow the law. Show me where there is a law that requires law enforcement to inform everyone involved as to what they are doing. Considering that to put the server back the colocation company had to know about it as they had to let them in. Does it really matter if the FBI or the colocation compant told the server owner it was back?

        Unreasonable search and seizure; It might have been iff they did not have a search warrant [riseup.net] signed by a judge in accordance with Fourth Amendment [wikipedia.org].

        • Does it really matter if the FBI or the colocation compant told the server owner it was back?

          Well, you are correct, legally, they probably did everything they needed to. The problem the FBI has, however, is that is perceived as a bunch of power happy bullies that throw their legal weight around whenever it suits them. Wither this is the case or not is moot, if this is the public perception.

          What they should be doing is apologizing more and, and talking and working with people more before just seizing s

          • What they should be doing is apologizing more and, and talking and working with people more before just seizing servers right and left.

            Apologizing for investigating where the evidence leads them? Working with people and giving the warnings of searches so they can erase evidence? Sure your first reaction would be to say "fuck off" but that would not matter if they had a search warrant. By the way, even if the FBI had an excellent reputation (which is impossible in this tin foil hat paranoia world) any criminal would tell the FBI to "fuck off". It would seem that someone pissed off at the FBI's reputation looks a lot like someone who has so

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by faedle ( 114018 )

      I'm sure it was returned.. um.. "better than they found it."

      • I'm sure it was returned.. um.. "better than they found it."

        The FBI prefers to call it "enhanced". I bet they simply 'friended' it on FBIBook.com ;-)

    • Yeah I see no reason for concern. Obtaining warrants from a judge prior to entrance of a private building is so 1999. Ditto the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Having the FBI enter your private property is doubleplusgood.

      Now please watch the screen and remember:
      Under CISPA we know *everything* about your online habits.
      So behave.

      • I just realized:
        Under CISPA the ISP could turn-on your webcam in your bedroom (or wherever your PC is located), share the data with the U.S. DHS, and be immune from prosecution by yourself.

    • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Informative)

      by yakatz ( 1176317 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:52PM (#39880891) Homepage Journal
      I think the concern stopping them from using the server now is the fear that the FBI modified "something" to log or report on traffic going through the server.
      Absent the implementation questions of whether there will be anything useful in the logs, when someone takes you equipment and returns it later without comment, it is not unreasonable to assume that something happened to it.

      (Note: I have participated in DoJ forensic training. The FBI procedures should be similar.)
      As to the validity of the concern: Investigators are not usually allowed to mount storage media in read/write mode. If they do so, any evidence obtained from that media will no longer be admissible in court. While many labs do have non-forensic connectors for storage media, they are usually not used for fear of accidentally tampering with the evidence.
      Investigators will make copies of media and manipulate the copies, but the originals will never be changed.
      This does not say that there is no way from them to put some kind of logging software/firmware/hardware on the server, but it is pretty unlikely.

      • As to the validity of the concern: Investigators are not usually allowed to mount storage media in read/write mode. If they do so, any evidence obtained from that media will no longer be admissible in court. While many labs do have non-forensic connectors for storage media, they are usually not used for fear of accidentally tampering with the evidence.

        Do the owners of the equipment have a record of the serial numbers of the hard drives? It is posible that the original hard drive has been cloned to an ide

    • Re:So, they returned a server (Score:5, Funny)

      by bluemonq ( 812827 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:04PM (#39881023)

      Apparently now they need to get a return warrant.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by morcego ( 260031 )

      Exactly. Not only they returned the server, they had a warrant. If anything, the one that is on the wrong here is the judge to issued the warrant.

      So yeah, I agree with EFF that the warrant is too broad and overreaching. But isn't that the judge's fault ?

    • Please then send me your PC for a few weeks. No issue for you, right?

    • If I was the servers owner. I would take the server out and take a sledge hammer to it. I am sure that it has traps and taps and I would not put it past them to have trojans and viruses that would infect and echo back from people who access that server.

      Sledge hammer is the only way.

    • Obviously they don't want to set a precedent.
  • Where did the FBI manage to dig up field agents who don't know that commercial facilities with high value equipment almost always have surveillance cameras? Christ, seedy dollar stores have surveillance cameras these days. Were they expecting nobody to notice when they just walked into a colo?

    • Re:Noobs much? (Score:4, Informative)

      by PRMan ( 959735 ) on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:48PM (#39880859)
      There were no cameras when they took it. May 1st secretly installed cameras after the original theft (a seizure requires notification).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ShaunC ( 203807 )

      The camera that caught the action was actually installed inside the rack, by MayFirst. You can see the FBI agent looking at it several times, so it apparently wasn't as surreptitious as MayFirst had hoped.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • As if they would care that they were "caught" returning a server the had a legal right to seize in the first place.

      They dun goofed big time. Hope they don't get backtraced.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by drpimp ( 900837 )
      Agreed but I don't think all field agents are a fail. At my previous job, which was actually raided by the FBI, they seized servers took what I assume they were looking for, deleted the video captured during the actual seizure which was found by IT when they returned them weeks later. After this was when I began my search for a job at a company that wasn't under scrutiny of a federal agency.

  • Rarity (Score:3)

    by lannocc ( 568669 ) <lannocc@yahoo.com> on Thursday May 03, 2012 @01:40PM (#39880763) Homepage
    From TFA (emphasis mine):

    The footage, taken by a small surveillance camera MF/PL technologists installed after the FBI seizure of the server, is a rare glimpse of what appears to be an FBI operation.

    The FBI has returned equipment? Rare indeed!

  • This is sort of awkward since I donate ~$50 to the EFF and wear their shirts around town but ... what was the FBI supposed to do? Throw up their hands and say "Nothing can be done" to the parents and students at the University. It's not like they went through an inappropriate channel to seize this server. What law was broken? On top of that, April 18th to May 3rd is a much faster turnaround than what I would credit the FBI.

    Sure it was heavy handed -- in about the same way as shutting down traffic for a major accident is heavy handed. You know we have the ability to just plow that wreckage off our highways and get on with our lives but noooo the police want to find out who was at fault and make sure everyone is okay. Even though it inconveniences thousands of people every day and, predictably, the accidents keep happening despite the police officers' efforts.

    Predictably, the threats continued even after the server seizure

    That's gotta be the stupidest part of this summary. The idea wasn't to stop the threats but to trace them! If logging wasn't turned off on that server, the FBI would have been able to trace it. That being the only thing they could do, they did it. I mean, if I was a student or parent, I would be really upset if the FBI said "Well, we could confiscate that server and mildly interrupt e-mail service for 300 people but it will only tell us who is doing it if logging is turned on and it's probably not so we're just going to go ahead and let this all continue to happen."

    Yeah, hundreds of people were inconvenienced when their e-mail was disrupted ... with the safety and lives of hundreds of other people at the university in mind when it happened.

    Big bad FBI, trying to follow the only lead they have on some sick pervert who gets off to bomb threats. Shame on them! Sometimes I think law enforcement is damned if they do, damned if they don't.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Barbara, not Barbie ( 721478 )

      As you pointed out, this is a VERY fast turn-around ... almost like they hope that people will use it in a "business as usual" fashion ... like a honeypot?

      Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.

      • As you pointed out, this is a VERY fast turn-around ... almost like they hope that people will use it in a "business as usual" fashion ... like a honeypot?

        Not even telling them that it was back so that the owners could decide if they even wanted to risk leaving it in place? VERY suspicious.

        The FBI also left a dolly to move the server. Unfortunately the dolly is filled with microphones and wi-fi packet recorders. The FBI also left a fruit basket as an apology. Unfortunately the fruit is laced with mind control chemicals. The FBI also left an apology note. Unfortunately the text is interlaced with words that activate their sleeper agent inside the company.

        I mean I can play the conspiracy game all day, yeah if they installed spyware on it, the FBI are pieces of shit. At least have the decency to request the compliance of the company and let them decide to help you track down a scofflaw. At least you could then tell the parents and students that this company won't comply with your investigation so your hands are tied until further leads.

        I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI? Any company worth its salt that accepts a server or hardware back from anybody proceeds to rebuild it from scratch. Flash or upgrade the firmware if you want! It's so hilariously convenient that law enforcement is a barrel of bumbling idiots when they're supposed to be helping us and when they're trying to help us they are seventeen steps ahead of us and already have infiltrated my underwear drawer. In this story they go straight from idiots who can't understand that logging is turned off on this server to installing honeypot software/devices in two weeks into a device they just got. Right. VERY suspicious. And let's face it, this bomb threat guy has already moved on to another remailer and he's not going to return to this remailer that he has inconvenienced.

        • I mean, come on, you think that the FBI is that savvy? You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI?

          Google "covert channels."

          You can't know what was done to the server while it was gone. Ergo, you cannot trust that server again.

          While I agree that most likely all the FBI did is image the drive so they could look for information on where the e-mails originated, you can't know that. Yes, even a marginally competent network admin could look for unusual traffic to unusual domains/IP addresses, but if you are dealing with a server used by hundreds of strangers (even if they are customers), it

        • They returned it without telling the owners that it was returned. What if it had sat there for a month, reporting on every packet passing through it?

          It's not that they returned it so quickly, but that they hoped the owners wouldn't realize it was up and running again.

          The right thing to do would have been to say "Okay, we're done, where do you want us to drop it off?" Not covertly stick it back in the rack and hook it up.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by rhizome ( 115711 )

            This is exactly it. The FBI aren't the ones responsible for reinstalling the machine into the rack. They took it on themselves for some reason, and avoiding attention was evidently part of it.

        • At least have the decency to request the compliance of the company and let them decide to help you track down a scofflaw.

          That would just give them time to wipe the drive, reformat it and re-install the disk image. No law enforcement officer is going to give anyone a chance to cover up evidence by telegraphing where they want to search.

          It's so hilariously convenient that law enforcement is a barrel of bumbling idiots

          Excellent generalization and patently untrue. There are thousands of IT professionals in law enforcement ranging from idiots who get all the press to geniuses who are never seen. If you want to be taken in by the bad press then go ahead and leave yourself open to the ones who can code circles a

        • they are seventeen steps ahead of us and already have infiltrated my underwear drawer.

          Shit! Yours too? I was afraid I was the only one here wearing tinfoil boxers....

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mortonda ( 5175 )

          You think that any two bit network or systems engineer wouldn't be able to pick up on weirdness in network traffic or processes running from/on the machine phoning home to the FBI? Any company worth its salt that accepts a server or hardware back from anybody proceeds to rebuild it from scratch.

          This server already has a record of having an anonymous remailer on it, what makes you think the operators know all this?

      • The security guard at the front door didn't notice the FBI coming in?
        The network administrators didn't notice a server popping up on their network?
        If you have to be officially told that a server has been added to your system the network admins have a major security issue.

        Could the fast turn around be caused by the FBI taking images of the drives or possibly have completed their investigation and not found anything. It is even possible that they are actually trying to be responsive and restoring service as q

    • Howzabout mirroring the switch port and logging/filtering the traffic thru snort to grab the IP addresses of inbound SMTP connections before the remailer scrubs them. What a bunch of networking maroons. The keystone Kops got nothing on this bunch of "investigators:.
    • According to TFA, there was no notification to the customers, the people renting space on the server:

      On April 18, 2012, a Riseup server located in MF/PL's [May First/People Link] colocation cabinet and managed by ECN, a progressive provider in Italy, was seized by the FBI. MF/PL found out about the seizure when Riseup reported that there was no response from the server. Technologists visited the server location and found that the machine had been removed.

      That makes me wonder exactly what procedures were not followed. You can't just go around removing servers at will.

      • That's an issue between the customer and the provider which owns the server (ECN), not the FBI. If ECN wasn't notified by the FBI that would be a separate issue, but that hasn't been claimed.

      • Not at will but you can when you have a search warrant [eff.org] specifically designating the server.

      • Are you saying that the FBI should phone ahead before executing a proper and valid search warrant? (Which could give those involved ample time to remove incriminating evidence.)

        Yes, if they have a warrant to do so, the FBI can "go around removing servers at will." That's kind of the point of a warrant.

        And I'm pretty surprised Riseup didn't have somebody at the data center follow the agents around and/or ask for an inventory of what was taken from where. IIRC, a full inventory of seized items is something

    • The responsible thing would have been to request the information from the server owners. They got heavy handed when they seized it effectively ruining any goodwill with the people most able to help them. Honestly the last thing you want to do it turn a server off. If spammers can figure out how to use encrypted VM's somebody else covering there tracks sure can.

      Having dealt with the FBI computer people would say this about on par with the shoddy work they seem to do. Fire the lot and let the SS computer

      • The responsible thing would have been to request the information from the server owners.

        That would give the server owner time to wipe it and claim "scheduled maintenance". No officer is going to tell people where they want to search.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Hentes ( 2461350 )

      what was the FBI supposed to do? Throw up their hands and say "Nothing can be done" to the parents and students at the University.

      Yes. There is no way to stop anonymous threats from happening. But you aren't required to evacuate every time a 12 year old kid calls you.

      • In the law-suit happy world we live in, you dam sure do need to evacuate on bomb threats. If you do, you'll get sued. Even if it is just a case of you didn't evacuate and it is revealed that you received a threat there's a decent chance you get sued. However in the event there is a bomb and it goes off? You are fucked, sued out of existence. So, institutions have to err on the side of caution, on the side of not getting sued.

        What it changed? Change the law first. However you cannot reasonably say to a unive

        • I agree with this. Also, my girlfriend works there and I would much rather them evacuate than my girlfriend get blown up because they ignored a threat by "a 12 year old kid" that turns out to be real.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by cpu6502 ( 1960974 )

      No law was broken?!?!?

      Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. The FBI broke the 6th law in that document (also known as the 4th amendment) which requires obtaining a search warrant from a judge prior to entrance.

      And yes sometimes the bad guy gets away. That is preferable to harassing innocent people & treating them like criminals (example: patting down their breasts and crotches) (example: randomly searching through cars) (example: arresting people who publish anti-war pamphlets) (example: rounding-u

      • You Need to Slow Down (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday May 03, 2012 @02:25PM (#39881209) Journal

        Try reading the Bill of Rights sometime. The FBI broke the 6th law in that document (also known as the 4th amendment) which requires obtaining a search warrant from a judge prior to entrance.

        You mean something like this [eff.org]? The warrant that was linked to not only in the article but also the summary?

        And yes sometimes the bad guy gets away.

        That would be a hilarious motto for any law enforcement agency! I'd opt for "We do everything within our legal rights to catch the bad guy."

        That is preferable to harassing innocent people & treating them like criminals (example: patting down their breasts and crotches)

        You are confusing the FBI and TSA.

        (example: randomly searching through cars)

        You are confusing the FBI and ... your local law enforcement? Who require probable cause?

        (example: arresting people who publish anti-war pamphlets)

        The FBI might have done that in the past during Vietnam but it was probably for other trumped up bogus charges and luckily today we have the EFF/ACLU to take up those cases when that happens. Got any recent examples or really any citations at all for this entire post?

        (example: rounding-up asian-Americans & tossing them in jail cause it's world war 2)

        Wow, dude, that was six decades ago ... yeah it was horrible and I think it's been publicly recognized as horribly racist and is a reason for public shame to the United States. I do not think that's happening today.

        (example: assassinating Americans because you SUSPECT they might be terrorists)

        Again, I think you're confusing the FBI with some other agency ...

        (example: strip-searching old people before they can fly)

        But you repeat yourself ... that's the TSA, not FBI. The TSA definitely has no purpose and needs to be dissolved.

        (example: forcing a breast-feeding mom to stand in a glass jail for an hour, rather than let her take her pumping equipment home to her newborn kid)

        What the hell? Citation?

        INFORM yourself of what's happening in the world.

        Yep, I'm the misinformed one here, got it. Hey, since all government actions are from the same people (you cross state and federal levels several times there) why don't you go tell your local county clerk to stop murdering Afghan children? Makes about as much sense as the rest of your rambling post ...

  • On April 24th, the FBI quietly returned the server, without notifying either Mayfirst / People Link or riseup, and were caught on video doing it. what kind of no security operation are they running at this datacenter? The last place i worked , to get in the datacenter required a thumb reader, to get into the clean room, that then detected if more than one person had entered and would not let you past that door untill the other door was closed and no other people were in the clean room, and it was ALWAYS st

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hoggoth ( 414195 )

      These aren't 'random people' wandering around a data center. This is the FBI. They flashed some badges, made some threats, and when they were done they zapped everyone with a neuralizer just to be sure.

  • For the the Peoples Choice award for funniest security vaudeville.

  • The server, which was operated by the European Counter Network ('ECN'), ... was seized in relation to bomb threats sent to the University of Pittsburgh using a Mixmaster anonymous remailer hosted on the server.

    Given their recent activities - Terrorist Plots, Hatched by the F.B.I. [nytimes.com] - I wouldn't be surprised if the FBI e-mailed that bomb threat themselves so they could legally seize and search the ECN system - brilliant.

  • Am I the only one waiting minutes for a slashdot page to load?

  • The white guy in the tie looks pretty cute...too bad he works for the FBI.

    Then again I do like em cute and dumb.

  • Allow me to take this opportunity to bring up again the idea of "transparent" remailers. The term may seem paradoxical at first, until you realize what "transparent" applies to.

    Here's the idea:

    If remailers are getting taken down because authorities want images of their hard drives, what about just giving that to them? Preemptively? The hard drives should have nothing revealing on them, I think. (Is that your understanding, too?) If the drives have nothing revealing, then remailers could continue to opera

  • So? (Score:3)

    by geekoid ( 135745 ) <dadinportland@y[ ]o.com ['aho' in gap]> on Thursday May 03, 2012 @03:55PM (#39882791) Homepage Journal

    They got a warrant, took it. When done the replaced it.

    Wow..yeah.. stop the presses...

    Some people are trying too hard to find a reason to be angry.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Your stupidity, Allen, is simply not up to par." -- Dave Mack (mack@inco.UUCP) "Yours is." -- Allen Gwinn (allen@sulaco.sigma.com), in alt.flame

Close